Madras High Court
T.Rajendran vs The Inspector General Of ... on 8 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.9907 of 2022
T.Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The District Registrar,
O/o.The District Registrar,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records of impugned charge memo No.3605/A1/2020-2, dated
02.05.2022 issued by the second respondent against the petitioner
and quash the same as illegal further directing the second respondent
to provide the consequent retirement benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The writ petitioner joined the Registration Department as
Junior Assistant in the year 1983. He was promoted as Assistant in
the year 1994. He served as in-charge Sub Registrar of
Rajakamangalam in the year 2012. He reached the age of
superannuation on 30.05.2022. In the last month of his service, he
was issued with the impugned charge memo dated 02.05.2022.
3.The impugned charge memo contains a single article of charge.
It alleges that the writ petitioner by registering Document Nos.2824 of
2012, 2387 of 2012 and 2682 of 2012 had caused loss to the tune of
Rs.13,72,207/- to the Government. The case of the department is that
these documents ought not to have been registered as partition deeds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
4.The question that arises for consideration is whether
disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner for having done
so.
5.The parties to all the three documents were co-owners. They
were also members of the very same family. They were siblings/legal
heirs of the deceased sibling. Explanation to Article 45 of Schedule I of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 states that for the purpose of that Article,
the word “family” shall have the same meaning as defined in the
Explanation to Article 58. In Article 58, the expression family has
been defined as meaning father, mother, husband, wife, son,
daugther, [grandchild, brother or sister]. The original Explanation did
not include “grandchild,brother or sister”. This amendment was
brought in vide Act 19 of 2013 w.e.f., 01.10.2013. The registrations
made by the petitioner were prior to the amendment. So technically,
the parties to the document could not have been called members of
the term “family”. But there were circulars treating siblings as
members of a family. This issue was referred to the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration who vide communication bearing R.C.
21581/A2/2016 dated 05.05.2016 sustained the petitioner's act. The
aforesaid communication clearly stated that the parties to the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
documents would come within the definition of the term 'family'. This
clarification ought to have been given a quietus to the issue. However,
audit objection was raised. The matter was once again taken up for
consideration at the level of the District Registrar, Kanyakumari who
also endorsed the stand taken by the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration. Yet the impugned charge memo came to be issued.
6.I wanted to know from the Additional Government Pleader as
to whether any recovery action was initiated against the executants of
the aforesaid documents. The answer is in the negative.
7.Be that as it may, there is an element of adjudication involved
in the matter of determination of proper stamp duty chargeable on an
instrument. In S.P Goel v. Collector of Stamps (1996) 1 SCC 573, a
question arose whether the act of the registering authority in not
registering a document or issuing certified copy thereof in spite of full
registration charges having been paid would constitute “deficiency of
service” so as to maintain an action under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that under the Registration Act as also under the Stamp Act, the
officers, apart from performing administrative duties, also, at times,
perform quasi-judicial functions. It was observed as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
“28.The registration Act as also the Stamp Act are
meant primarily to augment the state revenue by
prescribing the stamp duty on various categories of
instruments or documents and the procedure for
collection of stamp duty through distress or other
means including criminal prosecution as non-payment
of stamp duty has been constituted as an offence.
Payment of registration fee or registration charges
including charges for issuing certified copies of the
registered documents or fee for the inspection of
various registers or documents kept in the Registrars
or Sub-Registrars office etc. constitute another
component of State revenue.
29.In this situation, therefore, the person who
presents for registration and pays the stamp duty on it
or the registration fee, does not become a consumer
nor do the officers appointed to implement the
provisions of the two Acts render any service within the
meaning of Consumer Protection Act. They only
perform their statutory duties (some of which, as
earlier indicated, are judicial or, at least, quasi-judicial
in nature) to raise and collect the State revenue which
is a part of the sovereign power of the State.”
A learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in 2010-2-L.W.
964 (B.K.Gunasekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) held
that the determination as to whether proper Stamp Duty has been
paid under Act is a quasi-judicial function to be exercised by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
registering authority by going through the contents of the document
and by forming an opinion regarding the classification of the document
for demanding proper Stamp Duty as per the rates specified in
Schedule I to the Act. Thus, there is an element of adjudication
involved in the matter for determination of proper Stamp Duty
chargeable on an instrument.
8.The next question that arises is whether for a mere error
committed while exercising this quasi-judicial power, disciplinary
action can be taken against the official concerned. The precedential
trajectory is quite interesting. In Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v.
Union of India (1999) 7 SCC 409, it was held that an erroneous
exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi-judicial authority cannot result in
disciplinary proceedings and that it must be kept in mind that being a
quasi-judicial authority, he is always subject to judicial supervision in
appeal. It was further observed that if every error of law were to
constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the
independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers. This decision was
by a two judges Bench. It came up for consideration before a Three
Judges Bench comprising Their Lordships Ruma Pal, C.K. Thakker
and Markandey Katju, JJ. in Union of India v. Duli Chand (2006) 5
SCC 680. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
“5.The law on the subject was considered in
extenso in the three judge bench decision of Union of
India v. K.K. Dhawan 1993 2 SCC 56 wherein it was
noted that the view that no disciplinary action could be
initiated against an officer in respect of judicial or
quasi-judicial functions was wrong. It was further said
that the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial
powers acting negligently or recklessly could be
proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. The
Court listed six instances when such action could be
taken:
28. i. where the officer had acted in a manner as
would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good
faith or devotion to duty;
ii. if there is prima facie material to show
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his
duty;
iii. if he has acted in a manner which is
unbecoming of a government servant;
iv. if he had acted negligently or that he omitted
the prescribed conditions which are essential for the
exercise of the statutory powers;
v. if he had acted in order to unduly favor party;
vi. if he had been actuated by corrupt motive,
however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke
said long ago 'though the bribe may be small, yet the
fault is great'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
6.The Court, however, made it clear that ultimately the
matter would have to depend upon the facts of a
particular case. The present case would fall squarely
within the fourth instance listed above.
7.The decision in K.K. Dhawan case was considered by
this Court and followed in Govt. of T.N. v. K.N.
Ramamurthy 1997 7 SCC 101 In that case the
Tribunal had set aside the order imposing punishment
on an officer who had been discharging judicial
functions. The Court was of the view that the Tribunal's
action was contrary to the several judgments of this
Court and the settled law on the question.
8.In 1999 another bench of two judges in Zunjarrao
Bhikaji Nagarkar considered and referred to these
earlier decisions. However, the Court appears to have
reverted back to the earlier view of the matter where
disciplinary action could be taken against an officer
discharging judicial functions only where there was an
element of culpability involved. Since in that particular
case there was no evidence whatsoever that the
employee had shown any favour to the Assessee to
whom refund had been made, it was held that the
proceedings against him would not lie. In fact the Court
set aside the disciplinary proceedings at the stage of
the issuance of charge-sheet to the charged officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
9.In our opinion, Nagarkar case was contrary to the
view expressed in K.K. Dhawan case. The decision in
K.K. Dhawan being that of a larger Bench would
prevail. The decision in Nagarkar case therefore does
not correctly represent the law. Inasmuch as the
impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court
were passed on the law enunciated in Nagarkar case
this appeal must be allowed. The impugned decisions
are accordingly set aside and the order of punishment
upheld.”
But another Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad (2007) 4 SCC
247 approvingly referred to Zunjarrao. Duli Chand which was
decided on 21.04.2006 was not brought to the Hon'ble Bench which
decided Ramesh Chander Singh on 26.02.2007. In Inspector Prem
Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2007) 4 SCC 566, Zunjarrao was
relied on. Interestingly, His Lordship Mr.Justice Markandey Katju who
was part of the Duli Chand Bench which overruled Zunjarrao was
part of the Hon'ble Bench which decided Inspector Prem Chand.
Zunjarrao was followed in ESI Corpn v. A.K.Abdul Samad (2016) 4
SCC 785, Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2019) 10 SCC
640. In Krishna Prasad Verma it was held as follows :
“16.We would, however, like to make it clear that we
are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a
judicial officer passes orders which are against settled
legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous
influences leading to the passing of such orders then the
appropriate action which the High Court should take is to
record such material on the administrative side and place
it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned.
These matters can be taken into consideration while
considering career progression of the concerned judicial
officer. Once note of the wrong order is taken and they
form part of the service record these can be taken into
consideration to deny selection grade, promotion etc., and
in case there is a continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders
then the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the
judicial officer, in accordance with the Rules. We again
reiterate that unless there are clear-cut allegations of
misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any
kind etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated
merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by
the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the
judicial order is incorrect.”
One common thread is evident. Unless the official exercising quasi-
judicial function was actuated by corrupt motive or he acted under
extraneous considerations or he was recklessly negligent, he cannot
be visited with disciplinary action. In this case, the petitioner had
carried out his quasi-judicial duty while registering the documents in
question. His decision was endorsed not once but twice. There is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
allegation that the petitioner was swayed by any other consideration.
The petitioner has not committed any act of misconduct. Even if the
petitioner's decision as regards the chargeability of the instrument is
held to be incorrect, still, no cause of action had arisen for initiating
disciplinary proceedings.
9.Respectfully applying the aforesaid ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of this case, I hold that the
impugned charge memo ought not to have been issued against the
writ petitioner for having taken a particular view as regards the
chargeability of the instrument under the relevant provisions of the
Stamp Act. The impugned charge memo is quashed.
10.This writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
08.09.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga/skm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13924 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga/skm
W.P.(MD)No.13924 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
